The current crisis
A crisis threatens the Chinese church worldwide. We have heard of the dangers of materialism and the seductions of cults such as Lightning from the East, but this wolf has crept into the sheepfold almost undetected. I refer to the “spiritual pollution” of alien ideas from the West.
To deal with this threat, we need to understand it. That requires an awareness of two often-neglected realities: “Philosophical” ideas permeate culture, usually without being recognized; and these concepts also penetrate the church. History abounds with examples of both these facts.
Philosophy permeates culture
For example: Most Americans think that our radical individualism and our obsession with personal freedom come from the Bible. It is true that the Scriptures teach that we are created in the image of God, and thus have great personal worth and equally great individual responsibility. But would Jesus, Paul, or Peter have uttered Patrick Henry’s famous words, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”?
In fact, the today’s extreme individualism and passion for personal pleasure (“fulfillment,” they call it) really derive from a cluster of non-biblical concepts, including hedonism, relativism, Darwinism, Freudianism, secularism, Romanticism, and humanism. Some of these ideas trace their ancestry to the ancient Greeks (and even further, into the Garden of Eden). Meanwhile, American Christians blindly follow the herd into a life of increasing frustration and misery, for themselves and others.
What is “philosophy”?
What is philosophy? The answers include definitions like, “The kind activity carried on by philosophers,”(1) and “”Speculative inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge; any system of ideas based on such thinking.”(2)
Traditionally, philosophers have tried to answer three basic questions: How do we know? (Epistemology). What is real? – That is, What do we know? (Ontology). And, What is good? That is, Based on what we know, what should we do? (Ethics).
Philosophy differs from religion, for most philosophical systems have no rituals, strict codes of behavior, priests, temples, and the other trappings of religion. Whereas religion usually includes belief in some God or gods, and at least a vague view of the afterlife, philosophy as such does not necessarily refer to these matters.
Nor is philosophy always the same as ideology. Most philosophical speculation takes place in the quiet halls of the academy, and confines itself to matters of the mind, whereas ideologies seek to encompass all of society with a total view of existence and action, especially political action. Some philosophical systems have formed the basis of ideologies, like Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and secular humanism. For many years, Confucianism served a similar function in Chinese society. Nowadays, nationalism seems to be replacing the 20th century ideologies mentioned above.
Philosophy has a more narrow range of meaning than worldview, which describes a “comprehensive set of basic or ultimate beliefs that fit together in a consistent or coherent manner.” A worldview is a truth-and-value system that informs almost all our thoughts and conscious decisions. Both primitive jungle tribes and modern urban masses operate on the basis of a particular worldview, vastly different though these are.
For example, the worldview of modern Americans includes several assumptions, such as the absolute need for personal autonomy; the right to happiness; the priority of pleasure; and the relative nature of all truth claims.
In developed societies, religions, ideologies, and worldviews reflect ideas which are really “philosophical.” So, regardless of whether we realize this fact, our lives are shaped by “philosophical” ideas of various sorts.
“Philosophy” penetrates the church
But what about Christians? Don’t they take their ideas mostly from the Bible? Aren’t they immune from the “pagan” notions of our non-believing neighbors? To some degree, yes. As they learn the “truth as it is in Jesus” by having their minds transformed by the Word of God, followers of Christ gain substantial liberation from the worship of the idols of their society – whether these idols be physical images or mental concepts.
On the other hand, we are all creatures of our own time and culture. Furthermore, until the Lord returns, we shall struggle against indwelling sin. Each day, we need to identify and renounce the “futile ways inherited from our forefathers” (1 Peter 1:18) and “be renewed in the spirit of [our] mind” (Ephesians 4:23). That process includes understanding the non-biblical ideas which have hitherto shaped our values and assumptions, and replacing them with truths found in the Scriptures.
Shouldn’t the Bible and the Holy Spirit be enough to guard our minds from pollution? Again, to some degree, yes. The Reformers taught that the Bible is clear enough for the diligent student to discern its meaning (the so-called “perspicacity of Scripture”). On the other hand, the history of the church is filled with examples of failures by very learned theologians to avoid the “spiritual pollution” of alien ideas.
A sad story
In the Early Church, Clement, Origen, and others fell under the sway of Plato. They were followed by the monastic movement, which not only reacted against the awful moral degeneration of the late Roman Empire, but also reflected the Platonic notion that the body is in itself evil.
Later, Ambrose wrote a treatise on the duties of Christian ministers based upon Stoic ethical categories, while Augustine’s book on how to preach followed Hellenistic rhetorical theory. Though each man sought to fill the old philosophical skins with the new wine of Biblical truth, the result was a mixture of Biblical and non-biblical categories, in which important truths were neglected.
(To his great credit, Augustine’s later works, especially those on God’s plan of salvation, relied exclusively on the Bible, and he himself repudiated his earlier use of Platonic categories.)
In the Middle Ages, Aristotle’s long-neglected philosophical works were re-introduced into Europe and were hailed as the “new science.” Seeking to be relevant, theologians stumbled over each other in their attempts to incorporate Aristotelian concepts and logical analysis into Christian doctrine.His massive synthesis became the authoritative theological statement of the Roman Catholic Church.
At the start of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin strove mightily to “expel Aristotle from the universities,” (where theology was taught and learned), and to build their theology only upon the Bible, which they expounded as carefully as possible. After them, however, both Lutheran and Calvinistic thinkers and produced treatises on Christian doctrine which, though clearly Protestant and Biblical, resembled some of the Medieval scholastic works.
Meanwhile, the Renaissance had flooded Europe with newly-discovered works from ancient Greece and Rome, which were avidly read and imitated by thinkers of all sorts. That eventually developed into the “Enlightenment,” a movement which increasingly repudiated Christian categories. As the modern era dawned, skeptical philosophers like Hume rejected the possibility of knowing absolute truth, especially truth about God. Kant and others tried to defend orthodox faith with philosophical arguments, but failed to stem the tide of unbelief. A new rationalism treated all “supernatural” ideas as superstitious.
The church immediately felt the impact of these ideas, in the form of a denial of the deity of Christ (Socinianism), followed closely by a wholesale rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity (Unitarianism).
This devastating process picked up speed in the 19th century. Darwin, who began by seeking a way to explain the world without God, spun a web of scientific speculation that led to the abandonment of the first nine chapters of Genesis by many Christians. Marx asserted that religion represents the will to power of the oppressing classes. Going deeper, Freud claimed that faith in God flows from our own feelings about our earthly fathers.
German biblical scholars who had drunk deeply from the wells of Enlightenment skepticism “discovered’ contradictions in the Bible and then proceeded to question all Scriptural accounts of miracles.
Up in Denmark, Soren Kierkegaard revolted against the formalism and rationalism of contemporary Lutheranism by calling for a leap of faith. Loudly proclaiming that God cannot be known by reason, he exulted in paradoxical statements and urged Christians to know God not through their minds but through personal decision. 20th century Existentialism sprouted from this root.
The low point of “Christian” theology
The 20th century, which brought us two devastating world wars, along with the horrific sufferings inflicted by Fascists, Nazis, and Communists, also witnessed the greatest declension in the history of Christian theology. As the new century dawned, various philosophical strands produced Liberalism, with its belief in the goodness of mankind and its denial of key doctrines, such as the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ.
After World War I, Neo-Orthodox thinkers like Karl Barth strove mightily to restore a sense of man’s need and God’s majesty to theology. Their success was limited, however, by an uncritical acceptance of German biblical criticism and a reliance upon Kierkegaard’s existentialism. While they sought to base their systems on the Bible, they also asserted that the Scriptures are filled with mistakes and paradox, and that God’s Word comes to us not through propositions but through personal encounter.
In the Roman Catholic Church, traditional beliefs were steadily eroded by the new critical views of the Bible and by the evolutionary speculations of Teilhard de Chardin, who in turn influenced Karl Rahner Among Protestants, Process Theology reflected the Ssrit of the age by asserting that God, like the world, was constantly developing, and that he somehow lives in dependence on human history.
From then on, “theology” in mainline churches degenerated into a series of attempts to build a castle of truth upon the sands of philosophy. “Liberation theology” assumed that Marx was mostly right. Feminists agreed, and viewed the Bible as the tool of cruel patriarchs.
“Theologians of hope” like Moltmann and Pannenberg, appeared to base their systems upon the Bible, but denied the inspiration, trustworthiness, and therefore the full authority of Scripture. They believed that modern philosophical and scientific theories must play a major role in theology.
What about Evangelicals?
But what about “conservative” and “Evangelical” theology? Has it escaped the influence of non-biblical assumptions and categories? Not entirely. Partly because they too are creatures of their time, and partly through the influence of seminary professors who received their training under non-Evangelicals, formerly “conservative” seminaries, publishing houses, and pulpits now bend before the prevailing “winds of doctrine” that have blown westward across the Atlantic.
Under the influence of skeptical criticism, the inerrancy of the Bible is denied, despite the convincing defense of that key doctrine by such scholars as Carl Henry (in God, Revelation, & Authority). Even though scientists are deserting Darwinism in droves because of the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution, many Evangelicals still believe that modern science has disproved the accuracy of Genesis 1-9.
Post-modernism, which repeats the Marxist claim that all thought-systems merely reflect the views of a powerful elite, has entered the classrooms, book stores, and pulpits of Evangelicals. As a result, the belief that we can know any absolute truth has lost favor among more and more professing Christians.
One of the latest, and most radical, products of non-biblical philosophy is the so-called “Openness Theology” movement. Starting from philosophical assumptions about the nature of freedom and true love, “Openness” theologians teach that God does not know or control the future. While inaccurately claiming that traditional theism stands on the shoulders of Greek thought, they readily admit their own debt to Process Theology, and openly assert that theology must take its cue from modern culture.
You don’t have to look far to see the results of the cumulative impact of non-biblical ideas upon ordinary Christians. While some still hold to the Deist idea that miracles no longer take place, others display the influence of the Romantic movement and 20th century Existentialism in their search for religious feelings and extraordinary emotional experiences. Even among those who reject his theories, the legacy of Freud shows up in the way pastoral counseling relies more on psychology than on the Bible.
Secular humanism manifests itself when Christians live as if this world is all there is, and “personal peace and affluence” is all that matters. What else can explain the rising divorce rate among professing Christians?
Philosophy and the Chinese Church
But what has that to do with the Chinese church? The huge rural house church movement is known for its fierce loyalty to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and few of its leaders have received formal theological training. Surely we can assume that Chinese Christians have nothing to fear from Western philosophy!
Along with Coca Cola and McDonald’s, the winds of European speculation have blown westward across the Pacific, dropping the (acid?) rain of alien ideas onto the East Asian coast. Seminaries in Taiwan and Hong Kong, staffed with teachers educated in the West, inculcate future pastors with all the latest trends (and many outdated ones, too!). You can find the views of Barth, Liberation Theology, Moltmann, Pannenberg, and “Openness” theologians on the lips and in the books of Chinese Christian leaders, along with the routine denial of the entire trustworthiness of the Bible.
In China itself, the Three-Self Movement is committed to a theology heavily indebted to Marx, Process philosophy, and the evolutionary ideas of Teilhard de Chardin, and Karl Rahner. As more and more Western and overseas Chinese theologians lecture in the TSPM seminaries, we shall doubtless see an increase in the influence of Western philosophical concepts.
In an effort to speak to their own culture, key Chinese Christian leaders now seek to integrate Biblical doctrine with the writings of Laozi, Confucius, and Neo-Confucianist thinkers. Like their Western counterparts, they assume that key concepts from their own culture can be used to understand, illuminate, and organize theology.
Even the independent house churches are not exempt. To choose just one example from the 20th century, the sermons of Wang Ming Dao reflect as much Confucianism as they do Biblical categories and concepts. This great man resolutely refused to read theology, and confined himself to the study of the Scriptures, but he could not escape the philosophical milieu which he inherited.
Among ordinary Chinese Christians, should we surprised to find vestiges of ancient culture, such as a belief in yin and yang, Qi (ch’i), the primacy of ethics in religion, or the necessity of “doing what is natural”?
So what do we do?
Faced with the failure of previous generations to avoid the “spiritual pollution” of alien philosophical ideas, those seeking to communicate the Gospel among Chinese should keep in mind the following facts:
- An ignorance of the history of philosophy and of theology almost always leads to a repetition of previous mistakes.
- An awareness of the trends of our own culture will help us discern what “winds of doctrine” might be blowing through the windows of the church.
- Any time we begin with non-biblical categories or assumptions, we open ourselves up to alien influences. For example, if we assume that science, or psychology, or any particular philosophy or culture is a good starting point, we have already lost the battle for fidelity to the Bible as the sole authority for Christian truth.
“Contextualization,” for example, can mean the necessary requirement that we communicate the Gospel in terms understandable to our hearers, and relevant to their situation. On the other hand, it could refer to the age-old attempt to allow some non-biblical “context” to set the agenda for Christian teaching – whether that “context” is religious, social, political, or theological.
- Likewise, when Christians have tried to “integrate” Christianity with some other set of ideas, the resulting mix has contained much that diverges from Biblical truth.
- When we seek to be accepted and respected by non-Christian thinkers, we make ourselves vulnerable to their ideas. Thus, sending people to study in “prestigious” universities often produces seminary professors who are not fully committed to the authority of the Scriptures.
- Christian theologians have succeeded best when they allowed the Scriptures to pose the questions and establish the categories, while being attentive to what non-Christians are saying.
Those who call themselves Christians would do well to remember daily the necessity to present ourselves to God as a living sacrifice and to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, lest we be conformed to the world (Romans 12:1-2). After all, we desire to communicate the life-giving truth of a gracious God to a world in search of hope!